United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 792 F.3d 184

In 2001 a warehouse manager and his security escort were robbed; three guns were fired, one guard returned fire killing a robber, and $60,000 was taken from the manager.
García's DNA was found in the back seat of the getaway car and investigators observed a bullet wound on his body; he was charged with Hobbs Act robbery (aiding and abetting), a § 924(c) firearm offense, and felony murder under § 924(j).
A jury convicted García on all counts in 2004. Sentencing and appeals followed: this is García’s third appeal after earlier decisions affirmed convictions but vacated or remanded portions of his sentence for resentencing.
On resentencing in 2013 the district court imposed 36 months on the Hobbs Act count and 240 months on the § 924(j) count to run consecutively, and ordered $60,000 restitution to the victim.
García challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for the robbery/aiding-and-abetting conviction, (2) the sentencing court’s consideration of sentence disparities, (3) the restitution order, and (4) the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery	Government: trial evidence (DNA, physical evidence, bullet wound, circumstances) established participation	García: only mere presence; no proof of knowledge/active participation	Affirmed: prior panel rulings control (law of the case); no exceptional circumstances to reopen; evidence sufficient
Sentencing disparity consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)	Government: district court considered factors and explained sentence	García: court failed to meaningfully compare similar defendants; sentence should be lower	Affirmed: district court considered § 3553(a) and provided adequate explanation; no procedural error
Restitution order for $60,000	Government: conceded error in how restitution was handled at latest sentencing	García: restitution was improperly continued though never previously ordered	Vacated and remanded: court mistakenly said it was “continuing” restitution; remand required to address restitution and payment schedule consistent with statute
Consecutive vs concurrent sentences (Counts One and Three)	Government: argued consecutive sentences required in light of § 924 framework	García: sentences should be concurrent	Affirmed: district court exercised permissible discretion to impose consecutive sentences; no error shown

United States v. García-Ortiz, 528 F.3d 74 (1st Cir.) (prior sufficiency ruling in this case)
United States v. García-Ortiz, 657 F.3d 25 (1st Cir.) (earlier appeal vacating § 924(c) conviction and remanding for resentencing)
Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 579 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs later stages of same litigation)
Moran v. United States, 393 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (law-of-the-case principles in criminal proceedings)
Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (advancing knowledge requirement for aiding and abetting a § 924(c) offense)
United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247 (1st Cir. 1993) (law-of-the-case and finality in litigation)
United States v. Medina-Román, 376 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (aiding-and-abetting requires conscious sharing of principal’s knowledge and intent)
United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 1995) (practical certainty test for knowledge of firearm use)